A federal judge in Seattle has handed Indian snack giant Haldiram’s a decisive early win, issuing a Gray Market Snack Imports Ban that temporarily halts a Washington food distributor from importing or selling its branded products. The ruling comes amid accusations that the distributor disguised India-only goods and funneled them into U.S. markets, creating what Haldiram’s calls a dangerous and deceptive gray-market pipeline.

Federal Judge Halts Punjab Trading From Importing or Selling Haldiram’s Products

In a sharply worded preliminary injunction issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lauren King ordered Punjab Trading Inc. to immediately stop “acquiring, importing, distributing, selling, advertising, or promoting” any Haldiram’s products manufactured exclusively for the Indian market.

Judge King said Punjab appeared to have no legitimate right to sell the goods in the first place, noting the company never argued it would suffer harm from a ban.

The ruling also prohibits Punjab from using the Haldiram’s logo in connection with its business — a critical blow in a case centered on brand control and consumer trust.

How the Alleged Gray-Market Scheme Worked

Only One Authorized Distributor

According to Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., only Reshmi’s Group Inc. holds the license to distribute its products in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska and Montana. The lawsuit claims Punjab sidestepped this restriction by sourcing snack products meant for sale only in India, which are not approved for U.S. distribution.

The ‘Not for Export’ Discovery

The case ignited in July 2024 when Reshmi employees spotted a box of Haldiram’s snacks stamped “not for export” inside a customer’s vehicle. When questioned, the customer allegedly said the items came from Punjab.

A deeper investigation revealed more alarming details: Haldiram’s says Punjab covered “not for export” labels with stickers, altered nutrition information, and redistributed the products as though they were legitimate U.S.-market goods.

Similar packages surfaced at two additional Washington retailers, further suggesting a regional gray-market network supplying mislabeled snacks.

Warnings Ignored, Misbranding Alleged

Haldiram’s said it notified Punjab in August 2024 that its conduct was unauthorized. The company did not respond.

After receiving a cease-and-desist letter in October, Punjab allegedly replied only to say it did not “intend to act as distributor” and was “not aware of import restrictions.”

Haldiram’s sued in August, asserting trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, arguing that Punjab’s conduct not only violated federal law but also risked confusing and misleading U.S. consumers.

Punjab Defaults as Judge Denies Delay

Punjab’s sole filing — a request for extra time to respond — was submitted Sept. 10, but Judge King denied the request. Nine days later, she granted Haldiram’s request for a default entry, paving the way for a potential judgment against Punjab.

Neither Punjab nor Haldiram’s counsel responded to requests for comment Thursday.

Legal Representation

Haldiram’s is represented by Jessica E. La Londe, Meghan C. Killian, and Jennifer Lantz of Duane Morris LLP.
Counsel for Punjab has not yet appeared in the case.